What could this Be?? 911 - Second Strike Footage... Wing Disapears

page: 1
59
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+18 more 
posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Hi there,

I was schmoozing over at this thread OMG! HUGE Cache of New 911 footage released !!! and spotted a major discrepancy in one of the new vids...



If you look at the 2nd plane as it comes in the Wing disappears just before it strikes..... As if it was vid edited incorrectly.

The wing just dissolves just before the strike.... at about second 5-6.

What do you guys make of that???

This vid has me going nuts...

Korg.




posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


So...I find most of these videos of OMG 9/11 PROOFS!!!111 to be really lame, but I am seeing exactly what you are seeing.

The plane goes in and then the wing "disappears". I don't know if it's an optical illusion or what, but it's there, then it "isn't"

Very interesting...



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
i saw it on the other post too, and i cant really figure it out either. one of the members was talking about pixels, but from four different cameras? like i said in the other post, i always knew the government was behind it somehow, but i always figured they kinda "hired" the terrorists to do this using real planes. im really glad you turned this into its own post, as it seemed to really offend some people on the other one. (which i cant blame them if they had family or loved ones on that plane) but i hope they dont come over here to this thread and turn it into one of those pissy "youre wrong im right" yelling matches.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Low quality video, Bad resolution, Video artifacts and a wild imagination.
That's what I make of it.


+20 more 
posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by cluckerspud
Low quality video, Bad resolution, Video artifacts and a wild imagination.
That's what I make of it.


I don't think so; there is no artefacts around the surrounding image. I don't think you need a wild imagination, its right there...

Here have a closer look...





Korg.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Between those two images, the lighting on the side of the plane seems to have changed, so if the plane tilted a bit it's not out of the realm of possibility that the camera couldn't pick up a very slight difference in color between the reflection on that wing and the sky behind it.

Interesting regardless, as it obviously "appears" to disappear, not as nearly subjective as other video evidence.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Between those two images, the lighting on the side of the plane seems to have changed, so if the plane tilted a bit it's not out of the realm of possibility that the camera couldn't pick up a very slight difference in color between the reflection on that wing and the sky behind it.

Interesting regardless, as it obviously "appears" to disappear, not as nearly subjective as other video evidence.


I think saying that you can't see the wing because of a change in lighting is not the answer because if that was the case then other parts of the plane would look as though they disappeared too....

And as you can see from the image above there is a definite truncated dark part where the wing should have been..

looks to me as though this footage was pulled out of circulation all those years ago because of the anomaly... and is not surfacing..

If you ask me this footage adds fuel to an already raging fire.

Korg.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Yeah? A make believe plane flying with one wing slammed into the building? No better yet, it was all digitally done to appear that an airplane hit the tower! Even better yet, the first plane didnt exist at all! And the gypsies came and pushed the people out of the buildings because there wasn't really any fire?!



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by cluckerspud
Low quality video, Bad resolution, Video artifacts and a wild imagination.
That's what I make of it.


I don't think so; there is no artefacts around the surrounding image. I don't think you need a wild imagination, its right there...

Here have a closer look...





Korg.


You asked me what I thought, and I told you.
I'm sorry you disagree, doesn't mean I wouldn't go bowling with you
or share my lunch.

A compressed video or jpg.is not sufficient enough evidence for you or myself to analyze.

Lets first except that neither of us are experts, can we agree on that?!



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 
It's there and then gone. Where do you get that it's anything other than what you see? Frame by frame should clear this up. I wouldn't have a clue how to do that. I'm not computer savvy. Would someone please make the effort?



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2Rotten4u
Yeah? A make believe plane flying with one wing slammed into the building? No better yet, it was all digitally done to appear that an airplane hit the tower! Even better yet, the first plane didnt exist at all! And the gypsies came and pushed the people out of the buildings because there wasn't really any fire?!


So you are trying to say that actual footage showing the plane wing disappear is not odd??

This is not make-believe this is actual footage....

Why are there so many people out there that are willing to ignore all the warning signs in favour of what they were told? Ignore all the evidence and just go with it was Osama that did it??

Come on.... Look at the footage and stop trying to down play what surely is a whistle blowing piece of footage!!

Korg.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity


I think saying that you can't see the wing because of a change in lighting is not the answer because if that was the case then other parts of the plane would look as though they disappeared too....

The planes left horizontal tail section seems to do the same thing actually.



And as you can see from the image above there is a definite truncated dark part where the wing should have been..


Like I said if the plane was still rolling left/right as it was going in the amount of light reflecting off the plane would be changing; from there, frame rate and interlacing would have prevented it from being pickup like a smooth transition.
edit on 10/25/2010 by eNumbra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ROOM4ONEMORE
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 
It's there and then gone. Where do you get that it's anything other than what you see? Frame by frame should clear this up. I wouldn't have a clue how to do that. I'm not computer savvy. Would someone please make the effort?



I agree. I don't trust anyone else to do it so I will do it myself when I have the chance, hopefully tonight and then post my results.

I can see that the debunkers and US Gov infiltrators are now out in force on this one.... Good luck guys, I’ve already got the clip downloaded so pulling from youtube is not going to help you this time!!

Korg.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
So you are trying to say that actual footage showing the plane wing disappear is not odd??

This is not make-believe this is actual footage....


Incorrect statement!!!
It's a compressed digital file of the "actual footage".

2nd generation and possibly more.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra

Originally posted by Korg Trinity


I think saying that you can't see the wing because of a change in lighting is not the answer because if that was the case then other parts of the plane would look as though they disappeared too....

The planes left horizontal tail section seems to do the same thing actually.



And as you can see from the image above there is a definite truncated dark part where the wing should have been..


Like I said if the plane was still rolling left/right as it was going in the amount of light reflecting off the plane would be changing; from there, frame rate and interlacing would have prevented it from being pickup like a smooth transition.
edit on 10/25/2010 by eNumbra because: (no reason given)


Not buying that.

We are not talking about a couple of frames here.... Sure interpolation could be the answer for a frame or two... but consecutive frames.... Not a chance...

I will find out for sure tonight.... but I have good eyes and I can see the wing dissolve, if it was just a trick of the light as the plane rolled the underside of the plane would also have been struck me this kind of light and the effect would have leaked into other areas of the plane... But as you can see it did not.

There is also other footage showing this wing disapearing act... I will compile and come back.

Right now I have to go home...

Korg.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I am a big critic of the 9/11 official story, the tower collapses, etc.

I do, however, believe that two things struck the towers that morning. I was watching live during the second strike, and people on the ground saw it happen. I don't know what might have struck it, but something sounding like a jet engine and causing a shadow across the ground ran into those buildings.

I don't think a jet struck the pentagon, I don't know what the hell happened in that pennsylvania field, and I am certain that the towers came down by strategically placed explosives completely unrelated to the impacts. I still think the jets probably really did hit the towers. The videos and pics are cool though, and I have seen similar ones, and seen videos where the helicopter newscasters were disagreeing with the studio personnel. The studio people were certain of what they "saw" on the cameras, but the live broadcasters on scene did not see the same thing. Very suspicious.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by cluckerspud

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
So you are trying to say that actual footage showing the plane wing disappear is not odd??

This is not make-believe this is actual footage....


Incorrect statement!!!
It's a compressed digital file of the "actual footage".

2nd generation and possibly more.


If it correlates to other footage showing the same affects the chances of tampering diminishes somewhat.. wouldn't you agree??

Korg.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


It's a simple change in altitude conditions, which changes the contrast of the body of the aircraft? I'm no pilot but even I can see that!



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Show me the "original" format of the raw footage. Not 2nd hand video compressed for the internet.
Can you do that?



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
We are not talking about a couple of frames here.... Sure interpolation could be the answer for a frame or two... but consecutive frames.... Not a chance...
We are talking a couple of frames here, the anomaly appears at 0:06 and disappears when the plane strikes the building at 0:06 and it not nearly an entire second that passed; it really is only a couple of frames.



But as you can see it did not.

As I pointed out, it appears (to me anyway, accept it or not) that the lighting on both the fuselage and the tail change as well.



You don't have to buy it, but it's a plausible explanation.
edit on 10/25/2010 by eNumbra because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
59
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join